Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Spokane County planning staff unveil EIS, housing-allocation options and neighborhood zoning proposals
Summary
Planning staff presented a draft EIS and two alternate housing-allocation inputs (population-based vs. housing-based), proposed ways to 'hold harmless' small cities while reallocating ~3,000 units, and previewed neighborhood zoning (NR1/NR2) designed to promote infill, mixed housing types and ADU flexibility.
At the June 1 meeting, Spokane County planning staff briefed the Board of Commissioners on the county's draft environmental impact statement (EIS), housing-allocation options and proposed zoning changes intended to guide growth through 2046.
Staff described two inputs for assigning growth across jurisdictions: the population-based matrix (the board's 2025 starting point) and a housing-based allocation that shifts units based on housing forecasts. Switching inputs produces differences of roughly 3,000 housing units in how growth is distributed among the county and several cities. Planning staff proposed a practical policy option: let smaller cities (Airway Heights, Cheney, Liberty Lake) keep housing-based numbers they already planned for and move the difference into the county/unincorporated bucket or reassign it to larger cities that can absorb higher multifamily capacity; staff said Commerce will hold the county to the top-line income-band totals regardless of internal reallocations.
Staff also previewed a proposed zoning reform to replace typical LDR/MDR/HDR classifications with neighborhood-focused zones: NR1 (compatibility/protection infill) and NR2 (more permissive infill and master-planned neighborhood development). NR2 would be the presumptive zone for newly added lands in the urban growth area and allow a mix of housing types, small businesses and design standards intended to create walkable neighborhoods. The county intends to publish the draft EIS with a 30-day comment period and four public open houses, with planning commission review in late June and a July 6 county review of a preferred alternative.
Commissioners asked about market realism, capacity for utilities and transportation, and the risk that reallocating units away from growth areas would not match actual market patterns. Planning staff said the draft EIS includes alternatives (no action; higher density without UG change; mixed approach) and that code changes to support target densities would be proposed alongside the plan.
Next steps: published EIS and public open houses, steering committee recommendations, planning commission review and a July 6 county briefing on a preferred alternative; staff will also return with code language and maps showing specific allocations and trade-offs.
